House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned Republicans will investigate President Obama’s birthplace if they take over Congress.

Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, said Republicans will grind the government to a halt by issuing subpoenas against the Obama administration over a number of issues if they take power. He predicted that “gridlock” in Congress would “define” Obama’s first term if Republicans win the House, but expressed confidence his party would prevail.

Clyburn noted that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Oversight panel, has said will will issue “subpoenas everywhere” if Republicans win the majority.

“The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife’s family is from Georgetown or Sampit,” Clyburn said in an interview published Monday on TheGrio.com, an African-American news website. “That will define the next two years of the president’s administration.

Issa has promised to ramp up his probes into the Obama administration, but his spokesman said he would not pursue the “birther” controversy and that the congressman has not spoken about the issue.

“The Democratic Caucus doesn’t take Jim Clyburn seriously – Americans shouldn’t take his ridiculous claims seriously either,” said Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella in an e-mail. Bardella noted that Issa has already released his “blueprint for oversight” that focuses on investigating the expansion of government.

Some Republican congressional candidates and lawmakers have raised questions about Obama’s country of birth and citizenship since he took office. Activists who have expressed skepticism of Obama’s American citizenship have been labeled “birthers.”

Obama was born in Hawaii, and the White House released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate. But that has failed to silence arguments that he was not born in the U.S.

In the minority, Issa has gone after the administration on several issues including their alleged intervention in the Pennsylvania and Colorado Democratic Senate primaries.

But Clyburn suggested that those investigations will turn from political issues into Obama’s personal life if the GOP takes over the House.

Clyburn blamed conservative media for the phenomenon and said others could rebut those views if the Fairness Doctrine, a government policy abolished in the 1980s that required broadcasters to give both sides equal time on political programs, was still in place.

“Twenty-five years ago, we didn’t have Rush Limbaugh spewing hate all day, every day, and others on the radio, and we didn’t have a TV station dedicated to misrepresenting the facts and people making $20 million to go out and say what they know not to be true,” he said. “This has created an atmosphere of toxicity.”

The Remarkable Rise of Jan Brewer

One oddity about the Arizona illegals controversy is how little fallout, positive or negative, has touched the politician who set it off: Governor Jan Brewer.

As women have moved into the forefront of conservative politics, they have become targets for serious assaults from the left. The treatment they receive is far worse than that given male politicians of the same order, as we have clearly seen with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Families, looks, personality, grooming — every last element of their lives and persons becomes fodder for some of the trashiest elements of the contemporary political scene. No insult is too low, no attack too foul. The gentleman has truly become an extinct species, at least on the left side of the fence.

But nothing of the sort has happened with Jan Brewer. She has encouraged and put her signature to one of the most controversial laws in recent memory, one that has aroused open accusations of Nazism and led to boycotts, media condemnation, and lawsuits. It is a bill that is rapidly setting the grounds of debate for the upcoming midterms, and not at all in the left’s favor. And yet Governor Brewer — much to her own relief, I’m sure — has not yet become a target in the same way as Palin and Bachmann.

At the same time, she has not received the recognition she deserves, either. Brewer is a serious conservative, and one who, unlike many careerists who talk the talk but skitter into the shadows whenever anything more concrete is required, actually is doing things, throwing down the gauntlet not only as regards illegal immigration, but also firearms rights, deficit spending, and most recently, the PC stranglehold on public education. Governor Brewer has, in a matter of weeks, gone from being the accidental governor of a second-tier state to standing as an exemplar of the activist conservative politician.

Perhaps no greater irony in a story full of ironies lies in the fact that Brewer was born in Hollywood, California in 1944. Her father, a civilian employee of the Navy who worked as a supervisor at a Nevada munitions depot, was forced to retire for health reasons due to exposure to chemicals. The family returned to California, where her father died only a year later.

Brewer moved to Arizona after her marriage to Dr. John Brewer. She became involved in politics through a route not unusual for women: concern over her children’s education. Disgusted by what she saw at the school board meetings, Brewer decided to run for a seat on the board in the upcoming election. But when a legislative seat opened up, she ran for that instead, winning the election and taking office in 1983.

Brewer served as a representative for three years before moving on to the state senate, where she served from 1987 to 1996. She was Majority Whip from 1993 to 1996.

Brewer was a conservative reformer of the type that has grown common since the Reagan era, helping to craft and pass laws involving tax relief, budget reform, truth in sentencing, and charter schools. She was the sponsor for the first Living Will statute passed in the U.S.

From 1997 to 2002, Brewer served as chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and Scottsdale, is the fourth-most populous county in the country, with 3 million-plus residents (some of them are even legal). At the time, it was also one of the most ill-run. When Brewer took office, Maricopa was caught in a near-Greek debt spiral, having borrowed $165 million simply to maintain adequate cash flow. Five years later, Brewer had transformed Maricopa into one of the most financially stable counties in the country. Governing magazine went so far as to rate Maricopa as “one of the two best managed large counties in the nation.”

Brewer was elected Secretary of State in 2002. She has never once enjoyed a free ride while campaigning — all of her elections have been contested. Her major order of business on taking office was to deal with a chronic state budget deficit. She updated laws and procedures, removed outdated publication requirements, and trimmed work assignments and eliminated state overtime. Brewer was easily reelected in 2006.

In 2009 she succeeded to the governorship under Arizona’s unusual succession law (the state has no lieutenant governor) after Janet Napolitano was called on to save the country from the militias. Her tenure as governor has been nothing less than spectacular. Brewer expanded firearm rights by signing a gun law allowing the carriage of unloaded guns. She repealed Napolitano’s domestic partner dependents bill, which awarded gay partnerships the same privileges as married couples. Her 2011 budget cut state participation in such federally-sponsored health-care giveaway programs as S-CHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program, also known as KidsCare, a kind of kindergarten ObamaCare) and AHCCCS, (Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System) — the state’s version of Medicaid.

But Brewer’s major impact involves illegal immigration. Arizona is not only a frontline state, but also the current flashpoint of the illegals crisis. Since enforcement in urban areas has improved over the past decade, illegals have been forced to attempt crossings in more remote areas, with Arizona the target of choice. Deterioration of conditions along the border, marked by shootings, assaults, theft, and vandalism, has become insupportable. The Arizona border is today’s equivalent of the urban “combat zones” of the ’70s and ’80s, where, thanks to ideology and lack of will, crime was allowed to run rampant. Politicians on the national level — even native son John McCain — chose to turn their backs. But as the man said, all politics is local. The Arizona border crisis is local politics with a national impact.

Governor Brewer is the first politician to take the type of action the public has demanded. Senate Bill 1070 is no radical measure, as lefties across North America (not to mention within the U.N.) have been quick to assert. It is in large part a reinforcement of current federal immigration law. At the same time, it is not merely a ritual effort passed to placate the public — many police and sheriff’s departments in Arizona and elsewhere (at least, those not run by Joe Arpaio) have chosen to avoid trouble by ignoring illegals under the pretense that it’s a federal matter. Bill 1070 assures that such departments will actually stir themselves to enforce the law.

The bill is already having a dramatic impact, despite the fact that it does not go effect until the end of July. Illegals are fleeing the state for more comfortable milieus. Politicians across the west are calling for similar legislation. The left is throwing fits, always a useful development. The messiah himself has been forced to lower his gaze from the vision of national redemption to the mundane matter of border security. The issue will be central to the midterm elections, adding even more heat to already hissing tea kettles.

Not bad for a politician that most observers considered a placeholder who would be out of office in short order.

Governor Brewer is running for a full term this fall. There’s little doubt that she will get it. She is the rare politician who has seldom made a false move (apart from being an Abba fan, which we can forgive this one time. Fleetwood Mac would be a deal-breaker, though.). Even a successful effort to raise the state sales tax through Proposition 100 is excusable as a one-time means of closing the state’s budget gap. Brewer has promised that the new tax will be temporary and considering her record as a fiscal hawk, there is no reason to doubt it. Much more to the point is Arizona’s decision, announced last week, to join twenty other states in the lawsuit against the implementation of ObamaCare.

Feminism has backfired on the left. The heralded “Year of the Woman” (was it 1992?) was supposed to introduce a new breed of female politician that would inevitably steer the country in a progressive direction. Instead, the best and most effective female politicians have been conservative, many entering the public sphere after raising families, clear evidence that the traditional way of life is in no way as stultifying as the radfems insisted. Palin, Bachmann, and now Brewer are setting the political standard for millennial America. We are fortunate to have them.

Now if only we can get some of the males to try whatever it is they’re drinking.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming Military Thinker.

The video starts out with some content from obamasnippets.com, which, of course is contrived. And yet, there seems to be a synthetic truth about what the president says. Is he “natural born” according to the Constitution? No. The requirement is that BOTH parents need to be U. S. Citizens. Two U. S. Citizen parents produce a “natural born” citizen. It’s likely that Mr. Obama was REGISTERED in Hawaii, therefore he has a COLB from Hawaii. The truth may well be he was born in Kenya; that is where we believe his “long-form” birth certificate was issued. Nevertheless, “natural born” indicates, and speaks to the fact that BOTH parents have to be U. S. Citizens. His father WAS NEVER a U. S. Citizen, therefore, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a “natural born” Citizen of the United States, thus he is in violation of Amendment 14, and Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.

Globe Magazine has taken up the Obama Eligibility Story with a a hard hitting story that is sure to enlighten many people to the things that you have been reading here every day at ImpeachObamaCampaign.com.

According to the article, “A Former Hawaii records official is sending shock waves through Washington, D.C., by revealing there is absolutely no birth certificate for Barack Obama.”
The Globe continues:

“I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver’s license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone’s identity,” says Timothy Adams, who served as senior government records clerk in Honolulu in 2008.

“There is no birth certificate. I was informed by my boss that we did not have Obama’s birth record.”

Impeach Obama Campaign has been hitting the Hawaiian Election Clerk Story from the beginning.

And now on July 3rd, the day before Independence Day, a national magazine has finally taken up the story.

According to the Globe, “The repercussions of Adams’ stunning disclosure could bring Obama’s presidency to an untimely and disastrous end.”

The fact of Obama’s ineligibility is slowly being revealed across the country. Keep forwarding these pages to your friends and encourage your friends to do the same. Before long, with the voice of the American people calling out in a deafening shout, even the Mainstream Media will be forced to sit up and listen. And then, even Barack Hussein Obama will be forced to sit up and listen. And he won’t like what he hears.

Visit us at ImpeachObamaCampaign.com and sign the petition to Impeach Obama. Lets get him out before he can do any more damage to this beautiful country.

A suggestion for this 4th of July

Jerry Philipson

Every patriotic American should do two things on this July 4th.

First, recite the Presidential Oath of Office to themselves and second, resolve to do everything they can within the law to prevent Obama from inflicting further damage on the country and the world until he is tossed out of office in disgrace in the next election.

In other words, we must all be President. We must all take personal responsibility for safeguarding our values and beliefs and this great nation of ours because thanks to Obama and his acolytes the consequences will be catastrophic if we don’t. Hell, they already have been in many ways and if we don’t get on with it now America and the world will be unrecognizable by the time he’s through.

The Oath of Office is as follows…I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Since Obama has proven incapable of doing the job we must do it for him.

It is often said that there is no ‘silver bullet’, no one pathway to stop a destructive element once it has begun. But in the case of the U.S. ‘march to socialism’ and its own internal destruction, there IS a silver bullet: it is Obama’s lack of eligibility.

What eligibility issue?

Those who haven’t already, wrap your mind around this: the man has no authority whatsoever to do anything: nominate Supreme Court Justices, appoint czars, to spend our money, or to nationalize the auto, banking and health industries. He certainly has no authority to decide, all by himself, to nuke the oil blowout in the Gulf of Mexico and destroy us all.

Don’t send me another petition to stop this or that nomination or bill– focus on the source of the problem: he is illegally occupying the office of the Presidency. Don’t write me any more analyses of what is wrong with this psycho, he is illegally occupying the White House.

And don’t tell me he can harass Arizona for implementing federal law, he is an illegal himself and, like they say in Arizona, ‘illegal is not racist‘, its a crime.

First principles: the basic legal authority for the office of the President is missing because Obama/Soetoro does not meet the qualifications for the office: two citizen parents and born in the United States. Obama was not born anywhere in the United States, and he is not an American citizen. Period, end of story. No more distractions or initiatives.

The president’s recentdisappointing oval office speech elicited a chorus of criticism from across the political spectrum. For some reason the speech seems to have put a spotlight on the president as a leader, whereas other misjudgments in which he was directly involved in making policy had not. The oil spill, which was certainly no fault of Mr. Obama, seems to have finally caused the public and many of his cheerleaders among the pundits to focus on the president’s substance and not his style. That has been the unspoken, elephant-in- the-room, concern throughout his presidency, his aptitude for leadership. We are reminded of the lead-in lyrics to the signature song Ethel Merman belts out in Gypsy… “Curtain up…light the lights…you either got it…or you ain’t.”

President Obama seems to have the curtain up, light the lights part down pat. The dramatic campaign and convention stage sets, his world photo-op tours, his big oval-office backdrop to his little oval-office speech, and his ever-masterful use of the teleprompter have all produced a “strike-up-the-band” expectation whenever and wherever he appears. It’s the “you either got it, or you ain’t” part that seems finally to have focused the public on the president’s aptitude for leadership.

The befouling glob that threatens hundreds of miles of coast or, as Peggy Noonan put it recently so aptly in the Wall Street Journal, “the monster from under the sea,” seems to be a metaphor for the president’s inability to shape the world as he wants it to be. Speeches are not a substitute for coherent policy. The president, with the entire world watching his prime time speech, essentiallypunted. He pulled from the presidential duck-and-cover arsenal the time-tested, yawn producer of presidents bereft of solutions to all manner of problems…the formation of a new blue-ribbon commission. This was the cornerstone of his “battle plan” to face down the “siege” of big oil’s attack on our Gulf coast.

There is nothing more to be said about the quality of Mr. Obama’s oval-office speech debut. It seems as ifall the commentators from Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman and Jon Stewart on the left, to Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove on the right have already done that. Besides, there is something much more revealing that is apparent here. It isn’t about the delivery by the man who gave the speech; it is, rather, about the man who delivered the speech. The disappointing oval-office moment was more than just a lack of writing skill by some wordsmith presidential speechwriter; it focused the attention of the American people on the man himself and on what they hoped just wasn’t so; an apparent lack of the leadership aptitude which a president must possess if he or she is to succeed.

The evidence of weak leadership skills was there before but it became shrouded in the president’s rock star image. The fact is that there was very little about Barack Obama’s pre-presidential career that suggested any real aptitude for leadership. There was always plenty of “curtain up, light the lights” but the demonstration of leadership part was always a bit like a clock striking thirteen. That is to say, not quite reassuring.

His career as a legislator in Illinois, while always well hyped, was less than impressive. His biggest legislative achievement in Illinois seems to be the nearly 130 times he chose to vote “present” rather than “yea” or “nay” on major bills. And yes, we’ve heard or read the standard excuse for this apparent ambivalence. “It’s the way things are often done in the Illinois Senate,” we’re told. But since when has doing things the way they are done in Illinois met the definition of leadership anywhere outside of that state.

Besides, some of the “present” votes then state-Senator Obama chose to cast while in the Illinois legislature are quite revealing, if not troubling. For example, in 1999 he was faced with a difficult vote, to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults. Understandably, many African-Americans were opposed to the bill. On the other hand, Mr. Obama was trying to hone an image of a tough-on crime candidate. It was a difficult political call for him; so, he voted “present.”

According to the New York Times, on at least 36 occasions state-Senator Obama was either the only state senator to vote “present” or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. Politically, the option to vote “present” provides a certain amount of cover. It is a way for the faint of heart, in effect, to say, “I don’t particularly like this bill, but I don’t want to take the political risk of taking a stand.”

The juvenile crime bill was to allow offenders as young as 15 to be prosecuted as adults if charged with committing a crime with a firearm on, or near, schools. Both houses passed the measure handily. State-Senator Obama justified his “present” vote by opining there was no proof that increasing penalties for young offenders reduced crime. Mr. Obama’s aides said he was more concerned about whether the bill would be effective rather than with its political consequences. They did not explain, however, why he did not just vote “no”.

There were other “present” votes, in which part-time law-lecturer Obama, according to the New York Times, said he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions.Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote “yea” or “nay” on a bill that would allow certain victims of sex crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted “present” on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence.

On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone “present” vote in a 58-to-0 vote. When it appeared that this vote might become an issue in the presidential race Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill had passed 112-0-0 in the Illinois House and 58-0-1 in the state Senate. Again, why didn’t he just vote, “no”?

In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum. The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were “present”, including Mr. Obama’s. Mr. Obama’s campaign said he voted present to register his dissatisfaction with how the bill was put together. He believed (hold on to your hat) the bill was rushed to the floor and that lawmakers were deprived of time to consider it. Oddly, this hasn’t been a problem for the president with bills passed in the House and Senate of the United States.

The Times also reported that Mr. Obama was the sole “present” vote on a bill that easily passed the Illinois Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted “present” on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship, which ultimately did not pass the Illinois Senate. In both of those cases, his campaign said (hold on to your hat again) he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities. This from, now, President Obama, who has gone on, arguably, to impose the greatest funded and unfunded mandates on local authorities in the nation’s history.

But enough of ancient history. Fast forward to the centerpiece of his first year in office, health-care reform. Many on the left, and even some on the right, suggest that this massive legislative “achievement” is proof that President Obama is a formidable leader. We beg to differ. It may, indeed, prove that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority leader Harry Reid can effectively lead their party’s foot soldiers over any cliff they choose, but it really doesn’t say much about President Obama’s leadership aptitude. Quite the opposite. Apparently misreading the lessons of President Clinton’s terribly misdirected attempt at health-care reform, President Obama delegated the entire effort to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. He sat by as they cobbled together (in his name) the horrific 2700-page health-care reform legislation that a substantial majority of the people consistently said they did not want and consistently continue to say they now want repealed and which a third of the states are now fighting to stop in federal court. Real leadership of the type he promised, but apparently cannot deliver, would have brought both sides together instead of putting the nation through some of the worst acrimony we can ever remember.

The curtains up…light the lights first-day-in-office announcement that the prison housing terrorists at Guantanamo Bay would be closed within a year, was an early lesson that Ruffles and Flourishes without leadership aptitude is, well, just music. The world apology tour for American foreign policy under the Bush Administration, the Cairo speech, the presidential outstretched hand to our adversaries and the long-lapsed ultimatum for a reciprocal handshake in return, the puzzling back of the hand treatment to Britain, our closest friend since the end of World War II, the insulting treatment of our friends such as South Korea, Columbia, Honduras, and Israel, and the skyrocketing spending and the attendant ever-mounting deficits all call into question the aptitude for leadership that prevails (or is absent) at the White House.

Les Gelb wrote of Obama, “He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion. Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn’t — and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have.” Mr. Obama is beginning to look to more and more of the people who were dazzled by his meteoric rise and who were looking for the political equivalent of a messiah, as a growing disappointment. It turns out that Mr. Obama cannot by his charm, his gift-of-gab, his oratorical skills and his considerable intelligence will into reality policies that the people won’t accept and that many across the political spectrum here and abroad seriously question.

Which brings us full circle back to where we began… the growing fiasco that continues to assault the gulf coast. “What could the President have done to avoid the blowout at the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform?” the Administration’s defenders indignantly ask. Nothing. But that is the wrong question. The more telling question would be “what could the President have done to mitigate the damage?” And the answer to that seems to be, “plenty.”

He had the authority to waive the ridiculous and long-outdated, protectionist Jones Act that would have allowed significant expertise and siphoning capacity to be on location in the Gulf weeks ago mitigating the damage that now seems unstoppable. But, so as not to offend labor unions or domestic shipping interests, he turned down the offers. He could have immediately authorized Governor Bobby Jindal to begin deploying barriers parallel to the gulf coast as the governor was begging for permission to do (and for which he was still begging last week). He could, and should, have immediately designated the most operationally competent person he could findto take charge of containment operations and to report progress to him on a daily basis.

Instead, seven weeks into this debacle, when discussing why safety precautions were not in place, Mr. Obama assured the American people “that he wants to know why.” Of course, the answer he will soon provide is quite predictable since we have heard it many times before. The problem, we will be told, rests with the previous Administration. Blaming Bush, or industry or political opposition seems to be his answer for every problem. “I inherited this mess,” he often tells us. In short, the President is not providing the leadershipone would expect from a chief executive running the country. Instead, he has responded as one would expect from a chief executive running a think tank.

Enough curtain up…light the lights. The curtain has been up and the lights have been lighted since January 20th, 2009. Show us you got it, Mr. President. Not that you ain’t.